Profile Information

I don't make that equivocation at all. I asked
"How would a monopoly government set the prices it charges for security, criminal courts, arbitration and wages for its employees?"
I actually advocate the abolition of monopolies, like the government. I talk about competition on a free market for the security and arbitration industries.
I understand that you want this field (security and arbitration) to be exempt from economics, but it isn't. The establishment of a monopoly in a particular field (in this case security and arbitration) does not change the fact that it is an economy, that is, there is an exchange of goods and services, namely money in exchange for security and arbitration services, and that people have to be paid to perform those services. That's a market.

Edit: The title got cut off. It was supposed to be:
"Why do Ayn Rands views on coersive monopolies not apply to her ideal government?"
Ayn Rand had this view of monopolies:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/monopoly.html#order_2
How would the Objectivist government, which is, according to Rand, a monopoly ("a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force".), avoid the problems that Rand illustrates ("[the ability to] set its prices and production policies independent of the market," "immunity from competition," "[immunity] from the law of supply and demand" "An economy dominated by such monopolies would be rigid and stagnant."
How would a monopoly government set the prices it charges for security, criminal courts, arbitration and wages for its employees?

I don't really consider myself a leftist, but I think this was directed at me, so I'll answer: No, what I want is for the government restrictions that deny people opportunitys in business start up, self-employment and cottage industry to be abolished. It is those restrictions that create an artificial surplus of labor which leads to these terms of employment becoming viable.
Tucker talks about this when he advocates the abolition of the central bank:
"This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product."

How different would walmarts business model (their actually, current, existing right now in reality business model) be if they
* had to pay for the roads that are made by the government for the use of large military vehicles (amounts to a transportation subsidy) how would walmart have built the interstate highway system without taxation and eminent domain? the majority of citizens have no need for those kinds of roads)
* Couldnt use imminent domain to aquire property
* didnt have access to a cheap disposible, artificially inflated labor market created by government regulation
* couldnt use minimum wage legislation to push competitors out of business
* didnt have the healthcare of its labor force subsidize by government
Their efficiency as a discounter is a direct result of their ability to take advantage of government intervention into the economy. That in and of itself is not particularly objectionable, as all companies must do so to some degree. But the fact is that walmart is not a free market advocate. They actively advocate governmnet intervention into the economy so that they can exploit them.

So, the question is does the actual practice match up with the theory you posted?
No.
http://prq.sagepub.com/content/66/3/585.abstract
"Using data from the 2004 National Annenberg Election Survey, and multiple roll call votes, I examine Senate responsiveness for the 107th through 111th Congresses. The results show consistent responsiveness toward upper income constituents. Moreover, Republicans are more responsive than Democrats to middle-income constituents in the 109th Congress, and a case study of the 107th Senate reveals that responsiveness toward the wealthy increases once Democrats take control of the chamber."
here is more information and quotes from that study: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/19/oligarchic-tendencies-study-finds-only-the-wealthy-get-represented-in-the-senate/
My question for you is why you appear to have a vested interest in the defense of a nations evils which result from its factual status as a democratic mixed economy as if it were a free nation?

"James would have us believe the country has minimum wage laws because companies like Walmart pushes for them."
Its actually a matter of fact: http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/25/news/fortune500/walmart_wage/
"Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott said he's urging Congress to consider raising the minimum wage"
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304908304579563763405679116
""We are not opposed to minimum wage increase, unless its directed exclusively at us," said Wal-Mart U.S. President Bill Simon,"
"James and all his similar anti-business posts."
I'm actually against cronyism and the mixed economy, not business. EDIT: Im actually not primarily against cronyism, but for free markets.
"If you want to (plausibly) criticize Walmart for anything, do so for their use of eminent domain."
Did you read the article? Because I said this:
"The most direct of Walmart’s cronyism are two-fold. First, Walmart’s push for a raise in minimum wage to push competition out of business, since Walmart can afford to pay the higher minimum wage, but smaller competitors may not be able. Using legislation to destroy competition for customers, also destroys competition for employees and furthers the effect of labor supply inflation that allows Walmart to have the terms of employment it sets be accepted by the labor market. Secondly, the corporation has engaged in the abuse of eminent domain to misappropriate land from private owners by the force, which stops any resistance by a community to the abuses cited above."

Actually you can see from this study: http://prq.sagepub.com/content/66/3/585 that only the wealthy are represented in congress.
"I examine Senate responsiveness for the 107th through 111th Congresses. The results show consistent responsiveness toward upper income constituents."
Further:
"The average American doesn't realize how much of the laws are written by lobbyists" to protect incumbent interests, Google CEO Eric Schmidt told Atlantic editor James Bennet at the Washington Ideas Forum. "It's shocking how the system actually works."
www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/10/googles-ceo-the-laws-are-written-by-lobbyists/63908/
"In a sign of Wall Street’s resurgent influence in Washington, Citigroup’s recommendations were reflected in more than 70 lines of the House committee’s 85-line bill. Two crucial paragraphs, prepared by Citigroup in conjunction with other Wall Street banks, were copied nearly word for word. (Lawmakers changed two words to make them plural.)"
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/banks-lobbyists-help-in-drafting-financial-bills/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
"In an example a week and a half ago, the House passed a measure that would roll back a portion of the 2010 financial reforms known as Dodd-Frank. And reports from and revealed that language in the final legislation was nearly identical to language suggested by lobbyists.
It's been a long-accepted truth in Washington that lobbyists write the actual laws,"
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/11/11/243973620/when-lobbyists-literally-write-the-bill
I wrote it about a month ago, but never posted it here. You may have seen it on reddit, or objectivistliving?

http://anarchobjectivist.wordpress.com/2014/05/21/a-free-market-defense-of-walmart-not-so-fast/
"In his November 27, 2013 Forbes article, Doug Altner asks the question, “Why do 1.4 million Americans work at walmart?” His answer, presumed to be along free market lines, is that walmart and its employees voluntarily trade value for value to mutual benefit and satisfaction."

Thanks for your comments... Parah and I started that forum /r/objectivism a couple of years ago while it was abandoned. There are plenty of mainstream objectivist forums, like this one, or 4aynrandfans.com. I really don't understand the desire to have that one as well.
I would really encourage the people who don't like /r/objectivism because of who it's moderators are, or because of our views on the various objectivish movements, to join one of the other forums.

http://mises.org/document/1022
History of Money and Banking in the United States: The Colonial Era to World War II
Murray N. Rothbard
The master teacher of American economic history covers money and banking in the whole of American history, to show that the meltdown of our times is hardly the first. And guess what caused them in the past? Paper money, loose credit, reckless lending standards, government profligacy, and central banking
When will we learn? When people understand the cause and effect in the history of these repeating calamities
In a complete revision of the standard account, Rothbard traces inflations, banking panics, and money meltdowns from the Colonial Period through the mid-20th century to show how government's systematic war on sound money is the hidden force behind nearly all major economic calamities in American history. Never has the story of money and banking been told with such rhetorical power and theoretical vigor.
Here is how this book came to be. Rothbard died in 1995, leaving many people to wish that he had written a historical treatise on this topic. But the the archives assisted: Rothbard had in fact left several large manuscripts dedicated to American banking history.
In the course of his career, meanwhile, he had published other pieces along the same lines, but they appeared in venues not readily accessible. Given the desperate need for a single volume that covers the topic, the Mises Institute put together this thrilling book. So seamless is the style and argument, and comprehensive is coverage, that it might as well have been written in exactly the format.

Early adopter and long time Rand associate Barbara Branden passed away yesterday, 12/11/2013. I would highly recommend her course “Principles of Efficient Thinking.”
I wanted to recognize her life and passing with this blog:
http://anarchobjectivist.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/barbara-branden-rip/

"That's because big businesses are always targeted as evil simply because of their success."
[Citation needed.] This one of those Randian assumptions that doesn't fit the facts.
"It's a point that almost no one makes other than Objectivists."
Except every conservative ever.
"There's nothing wrong with being large or successful."
What if you are at successful at graft and political pull? Still virtuous?
"To think Objectivists never point out that the poor are hurt the most due to government intervention is fallacious."
Do you have a link to an article explaining as much?
"Rand, herself, pointed it out."
Yes, She did. But objectivists today don't. That's why I think there is a disconnect between objectivist philosophy and the modern orthodox objectivist movement.